27 October 2011 12:02 PM

An Evening without Richard Dawkins

This is a light-hearted diversion for the God-hating adherents to this site (to whom I occasionally fling hunks of bleeding flesh, so that I can watch them come flapping from afar to feast on it).

Maybe it will also be a rest from the tedium of responding (yet again) to the various lame and exploded ‘arguments’ of the drug lobby, for making their selfish habit even more legal than it already is. If just one of them ever paid any attention, or engaged seriously, it would make it seem worthwhile. But they never do. It’s all mechanical, destructive rhetoric they’ve got off the telly, or learned in PSHE classes.

Now, serious engagement was exactly what we got in the uplifting surroundings of Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre (named after Archbishop Gilbert Sheldon, since you ask, and one of the great buildings of Europe, superb inside and outside but perhaps most astonishing of all up in the mighty roof-beams that make it possible) in Oxford on Tuesday night. The Sheldonian is one of a group of buildings which in largely embody English history, as well as expressing the Royal grandeur of the restored Stuarts. They look pretty startling now, but set amid the small and muddy town that was Oxford at the end of the 17th century, they must have seemed almost impossibly majestic.

Next to it is Bodley’s Great Library, and beyond that Radcliffe Square dominated by The College of All Souls, a monument to the dead of the Hundred Years’ War, and the soaring church of St Mary the Virgin, scene of Thomas Cranmer’s great trial and renunciation of the Pope. Next to the Sheldonian is the Clarendon Building, once the headquarters of the University Press, and built thanks to the profits of the ‘History of the Great Rebellion’, the first great account of the English Civil War, written by Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon. Sheldon, a courageous Anglican who had to be ejected bodily from All Souls, by the Cromwellians, was a close ally of Clarendon, so it is fitting that buildings named after both of them stand next to each other. Three hundred yards away is the spot where Cranmer, (and before him Latimer and Ridley) were burned to death for their Protestant beliefs. But I digress. The American philosopher William Lane Craig had offered to debate Richard Dawkins’s book ‘The God Delusion’ with its author, in his home town (and mine) . Dawkins is around, because he has his own event in another Oxford location on Friday. But despite being in the midst of promoting a new book, Dawkins refused to come. He came up with a series of silly excuses, none of which holds water. And an empty chair was provided for him at the Sheldonian on Tuesday evening, in case he changed his mind and – yes – to mock him for his absence. Details of this controversy are all over the web, and I was impressed by the behaviour of another Oxford atheist, Daniel Came, who said Dawkins should have turned up, and had the guts to be there himself . I might say that I thought his contribution was serious, thoughtful and properly modest about the limits of what we can know. The bumptiousness and raillery of Dawkins and some other anti-God preachers was entirely absent from his discourse, and it was all the better for it.

I have to confess here that I don’t find Craig’s debating style or manner very attractive. It is too smooth and American for me – and his best moment (again, for me) came when he dropped his salesman’s manner and said, in effect, that he was sorry if he seemed too certain, and that his fundamental claims were modest ones – that the Theist position was scientifically tenable.

The most moving – and most enjoyable – contribution of the evening came from the marvellous Dr Stephen Priest, simultaneously diffident and extremely powerful. I won’t try to summarise it because I’m sure I’d fail. I hope it will eventually make it on to the web. It reminded me of why I had once wanted to study philosophy, a desire which faded rapidly when I was exposed to English Linguistic Philosophy and various other strands of that discipline which made me wonder if I had wandered into a convention of crossword-compilers, when what I wanted was to seek the origins of the universe.

Many of you will know that in his failure to face William Lane Craig, Professor Dawkins was not alone. Several other members of Britain’s Atheist Premier League found themselves unable or unwilling (or both) to take him on.

The important thing about this is that what Craig does is simple. He uses philosophical logic, and a considerable knowledge of physics, to expose the shallowness of Dawkins’s arguments. I would imagine that an equally serious Atheist philosopher would be able to give him a run for his money, but Dawkins isn’t that. He would have been embarrassingly out of his depth.

For what Craig achieves is this. He simply retakes an important piece of ground that Christianity lost through laziness and cowardice, rather than because it lacked the weapons to defend it.

He doesn’t (in my view) achieve total victory over the unbelievers. He simply says : ‘In this logic, which you cannot deny, and in this science, which you cannot deny either, it is clear that there is plenty of room for the possibility that God exists and made the universe’. No scientifically literate person, who is informed and can argue logically, can in truth say that he is wrong.

The trouble is that so many ‘official’ Christians have more or less conceded this ground, not being very firm believers themselves, and lacking Craig’s training in logic and science.

He is the antidote to the lazy belief that in some way ‘science’ is incompatible with ‘religion’, and to the idea that all believers are unlettered morons who think the earth is 5,000 years old and that there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark.

This is, I’m afraid, all too often the tone of the anti-God people who come here to post. It’s settled, you’re stupid, why not give up?

It’s not settled. We’re not stupid. We won’t give up.

(NB: A note to Mr ‘Crosland’. I won’t respond to any queries he posts here - and I have a small bet with myself as to what form they will take this time - until he replies to my ‘childishly simple’ private letter to him, which he has had since August).

Comments

When and where do I see "bloodthirsty" Christians? Well, I wouldn't use that word, but Christians calling for a fellow human being's blood are to be found almost everywhere, including this blog. Isn't our host an advocate of the death penalty? (I'm not sure, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

In the past that would have meant "off with his head", but today it merely entails stringing him up, breaking his neck and letting him dangle till he's dead. Or injecting some poison into his vein or electicuting him till the sparks fly. Not very nice. And I maintain: not very Christian either. (You may disagree.)

I do not assume that forgiving people means letting them off punishment. As I said in my last comment, punishment must follow the crirme. But it should not - and NEED NOT - be barbaric.

If the law of the land demands execution or other forms of barbaric punishment (cutting off hands, stoning to death, for example) then all I can say is that the law is bad and should be altered.

Killing apprehended criminals is not necessary, it has a brutalizing effect, it is inhumane and it has been banned in nearly 100 countries (and is no longer the practice in several others). For very good reason.

Finally, I fail to understand the logic of this statement, quote: "Why should not those domestic enemies of the people be subject to an interdiction as ruthless as would naturally be meted out to foreign invaders?" (Ruthless.= merciless!!)

Why should they be? There is no need to kill an apprehended criminal in cold blood, just because foreign invaders may be killed in a defensive war. - Or do you see a logical consequence there?

Peter Charnley - please don't be so angry with me. I genuinely respect any Christian - or any other believer - if he likewise genuinely attempts to live by his morality. That is why I have a soft spot for Quakers and the Salvation Army. And even a little (very little) bit for Jehovah's Witnesses.

So anyone who is a genuine follower of Christ and attempts to practise what Christ taught is high up in my estimation. I disagree with his belief in a deity and in the stories of the bible (but there we should agree, peacefullly, to differ), but I don't regard such believers as hypocrites.

In another post, Peter Preston asks me where I see Christians showing hatred, calling for revenge and crying Kill, Kill. Well, just take a look in the newspapers (and even on this blog) when a murderer or paedophile is apprehended. What do I read:

Off with his head. Bring back capital punishment. Prison is too good for him. Scum. Animal. Monster. Doesn't deserve to live. And so on ... - True, I can't be certain that the writers are all Christians. But if they are, they are - in my opinion - hypocritical.
-----------------------
In your last paragraph you accuse me of deliberate dishonesty. Could you please document that? Or withdraw your accusation? I'd much appreciate it ...

And before I forget, I asked you where were the "glaring hypocrisies" that you claimed were in my comment. Perhaps you could answer that as well.

I don't like entering this dust laden tail chasing when religious debate is concerned - but D.Bunker's bigoted nonsense is truly tiresome to a degree that sometimes compels. This will surely be my final input here.

There has only ever been one perfect Christian – Christ himself. Your one-dimensional interpretation of the original Christian message and its subsequent practise by ordinary human beings typifies that of the deluded anti-religious fanatic.

If you were ever informed that you were to be mistaken for a serial and serious wrongdoer and then subsequently were to be given a choice of being shut in one of two rooms - one occupied by a group of atheists, the other by a similar number of devout Christians - both groups being victims of your mistaken identity and each having been informed that they had free license, without consequence, to deal with you as they saw fit, I know which room you would choose to enter. And so do you.

Your professed interpretation of the original message of Christianity and its actual influence upon people’s behaviour as a cultural whole - contrasted with the historical and present day behaviour of people without faith is absurd and dishonest. And you know it D.Bunker.

Contributor D Bunker, whom I thank for his kind reply, writes:
"I do not know of any "teaching of Christianity" which - explicitly - says; Capital punishsment is forbidden. "
Well then, sir, do you know of any teaching of Christianity which “implicitly” forbids capital penalties for specified crimes? If you do, kindly let me have the details, so that I too may become wiser.
You add, sir:
"If I see a murderer, apprehended, handcuffed and brought before a court of law ...
and I see Christians ...
- showing hatred instead of love for their neighbour ...
- calling for revenge rather than forgiveness ...
- showing no compassion for a fellow human being, and instead ...
- crying: Kill, kill, kill - where there is no necessity to kill ,,,
... then I see a discrepancy .....which I call hypocrisy."
But when and where do you see such blood-thirsty Christians? Perhaps I have lived a sheltered life but I cannot recall ever seeing "Christians showing hatred instead of love for their neighbour ...- calling for revenge rather than forgiveness ...- showing no compassion for a fellow human being, and instead ...- crying: Kill, kill, kill - where there is no necessity to kill"
Unless you can provide evidence from your own experience of Christians doing such things, why should such hypotheses be taken seriously? In the first place how can you have any idea whether anyone has forgiven anyone else, unless you are yourself the forgiver?
Moreover why do you assume that forgiving people means letting them off any punishments which may be due for the offences thus forgiven? You seem to be confusing the need for reparation with lack of mercy.
If someone breaks your window, you may forgive him his offence but forgiving him the offence doesn't automatically mean that he doesn't have to pay for it to be repaired.

You conclude that you:
"think all force necessary to defend oneself (or anyone else) from an attack is justified, even if it results in the attacker's death. And crime should be punished."
Well, if "crime should be punished", what if the penalty for crime X should happen to be execution? Does your jussive still hold good? Or do you really mean "Be reasonable; do it my way!"

If the penalty in some hypothetical country for crime X is promulgated as penalty Y and person Z, being of sound mind and in full knowledge of the law, commits crime X, why should penalty Y not be exacted by just rulers? There may, of course, be mitigating circumstances in this case of that, but "mens rea" surely implies either a recklessness of the law or a challenge to its authority.
Some criminals commit against their fellow-citizens crimes such as would normally and naturally be feared from an invading foreign army. Why should not those domestic enemies of the people be subject to an interdiction as ruthless as would naturally be meted out to foreign invaders?

Peter Preston - my reply to you seems to have got lost. Probably my own fault - pressed the wrong button or something similar. So here's another try:

My apologies for not answering your question. You are of course quite right. I do not know of any "teaching of Chritianity" which - explicitly - says; Capital punishsment is forbidden. Nor do I know of any teaching of Christianaity which says: A criminal must be killed in cold blood. If there is such a teaching, then it just goes to prove my ignorance again.

But that is not the point.

If I see a murderer, apprrehended, handcuffed and brought before a court of law ...

and I see Christians ...

- showing hatred instead of love for their neighbour ...
- calling for revenge rather than forgiveness ...
- showing no compassion for a fellow human being, and instead ...
- crying: Kill, kill, kill - where there is no necessity to kill ,,,

... then I see a discrepancy between the lofty morals claimed by Christians in the name of their Saviour (who died to save sinners) and their words and actions - a discrepancy which I call hypocrisy.

And before anyone uses the stupid phrase "bleeding heart", just let me make one thing clear. My atheistic conscience may forbid me to kill a fellow human being in cold blood. But l think all force necessary to defend oneself (or anyone else) from an attack is justified, even if it results in the attacker's death. And crime should be punished.

Contributor D Bunker, whom I thank for his kind reply and whom I had asked "do you personally know of any teaching of the Founder of Christianity which condemns what you call “the death penalty”?" writes by way of reply:

"...capital punishment? Isn't that "playing God"? "

I wasn't asking whether capital punishment could be rationally either defended or exploded - as you seem to have assumed that I was - but rather whether any teaching of Christianity known to you forbade it. Am I then to take it, sir, that you don't know of any such Christian veto?
If you don't, wasn't your accusation of hypocrisy against "Christians who support the death penalty " unwarranted - at least on any evidence which you had to offer?

Peter Preston - thank you again for another interesting comment - a comment which has left me wondering how best to reply. Here goes:

Firstly, I'm sure you'll agree that it wasn't very nice of Peter Charnley to accuse me of glaring hypocrisy. Be that as it may, that was the reason for my little list of what I consider to be true hypocrisies.

Indeed, you are quite right, I cannot (and don't profess to be able to) look into other people's thoughts or motivations. All I can do is judge them by their words and actions - by comparing them with their professed morality.

Example: The death penalty. - God gave life and only God may take life away, say those who fundamentally oppose all abortion. Abortion is "playing God", just as is euthanasia, they claim. (Whereas it is merely the desire of a person to end his own life.)

But capital punishment? Isn't that "playing God"?

There is no need to kill the criminal, no matter how heinous his crime. Thomas Aquinas justified the death penalty because it protects innocent citizens. But today we have other means of protecting them - take them out of circulation for as long as is necessary. So Thomas's justification no longer holds.

The only other argument that I think could "justify" capital punishment is that it is a deterrent. It prevents others from murdering. But - does it? Does it really? At best, this is debatable.

The real reason I imagine people have for wanting the criminal to be killed (quite unnecesarily, since he is no longer in a position to commit further crimes if lhe is kept in prison as long as necessary) is a desire for revenge.

Understandable, but it will not bring anyone back to life. And hardly in line with the "religion of love" and the Christian command to forgive those who trespass against us.

Quite apart from the hypocrisy, capital punishment is dangerous. How many innocent people have been executed? (And who amongst us might be the next one?) And it rules out the chance, which surely every human being deserves, to genuinely repent and become a decent person.

We don't have to killl an apprehended criminal. So why do it? - It is only my humble opinion, but I think that, for followers of Christ and his teachings on the Mount, it is hypocrisy.

I'll give you some truly "glaring" hypocrisies:
1. Christians who don't forgive those that trespass against them.
2. Christians who support the death penalty.
3. Christians who justify war.
4. Christians who think a confession is a free pass for further "sins".
5. Christians who wallow in riches.“
All contrary to the teachings of Christ.”
Well, one or two of that list might be regarded as hypocrisy, I suppose, by a less than charitable observer but how can you, sir, have the foggiest idea whether there are any such “Christians”? Do you claim to be able to see into other people’s thoughts and motivations? Or are you just guessing, as you seem to be?
After all, if you are prepared to guess at the spiritual condition of someone else and then accuse that person of the faults or sins of which you have imagined him culpable, then readers need hardly be surprised by any other accusations which you may care to make. I had not thought it likely that you, sir, would fall into that glaring error.
Incidentally, do you personally know of any teaching of the Founder of Christianity which condemns what you call “the death penalty”? I can’t think of any, but I may, of course, have missed something. I would be grateful therefore, if you are aware of any such condemnation, for details, so that I too may become a little wiser.
As for no 5 in your list, I am informed that Christianity teaches the spiritual difficulties and dangers faced by the rich rather than any two-facedness, which you seem inclined to impute to such people.
If there are any “Christians who don't forgive those that trespass against them”, they will presumably have some explaining to do, when they meet God but that is between each individual and God Himself and is none of your business or mine.
As for war, I know of no Christian teaching which forbids people to defend themselves, if they are attacked. If you do, I would again be grateful for further details.
I do not peer into other people’s souls. If they were worse people than me, I might be appalled at what I might see and, if they were better people than me, I might fall victim to envy. So I avoid accusations of hypocrisy but I do seem to detect at least some glaring inconsistency in rulers who are prepared to authorise - and presumably seek also to justify - aggressive war against foreign enemies, while resolutely refusing to authorise any even remotely similar war against domestic foes guilty of hideous crimes against their fellow-citizens.
The intentions of such rulers may, for all I know, be good but, if they have not also wisdom, those good intentions may pave roads leading to some undesirable destinations.

Peter Charnley - it grieves me to have to take issue with you again. But it seems you are unable to document the "glaring hypocrisies" you accuse me of - which is understandable because there weren't any.

But that isn't the reason for this comment. It's your implication (also undocumented) that I go in for personal attacks on the blog. Well, I don't. l concentrate on debunking false arguments and flawed logic. And having normal polite discussions on matters over which we may well disagree.

Admittedly I do tease bloggers who opt out of the discussion through lack of argument. (What about those "hypocrisies", Peter? And those polar bears, Dermot? And that Intelligent Designer, Chris? Not to mention the goblin on the end of PH's nose that he can believe exists - if he "wants to"!)

And I sometimes run out of patience when people keep repeating the same nonsense, even though it's been compehensively debunked. Or with bloggers who attack me personally.

A little sarcasm? A spot of provocation? A condescending turn of phrase? Certainly.

But personal attacks on other bloggers. l hope I haven't gone in for that.

However, if I have, and anyone justifiably feels unfairly treated and can document it, I shall apologize. No problem.

(Hey - I did once, voluntarily, when I called someone "devious" - if I remember rightly.)

1. Christians who don't forgive those that trespass against them.
2. Christians who support the death penalty.
3. Christians who justify war.
4. Christians who think a confession is a free pass for further "sins".
5. Christians who wallow in riches.

All contrary to the teachings of, er, Christ.

There are plenty of other hypocrisies of course, not only by Christians. But that'll do for a start.

Will you now perhaps tell me what hypocrisies you referred to in my comment?

You bring a whole new meaning to the phrase 'Perpetual Motion' D.Bunker. How on earth do you summon up the will and energy ? Don't reply - the cheeky posting of the individual using a variant form of your own pseudonym as their own should have been a fitting conclusion to this fading thread. Alas no.

The glaring hypocrisies contained in what was no doubt your attempt at perhaps the final word ( 21 November 2011 at 05:57 PM) no doubt provided several seasoned travellers here with a good chuckle. Peculiarly entertaining.

Hi, "Newcomer"! Welcome to the blog. Jumped in a bit late, haven't you? And you've got off to such a bad start!

You see, it's advisable to get our facts right. And it is a fact that I'm not a "know-it-all". Unlike believers in Creators and Intelligent Designers, for example, I don't know how our universe came about. (And I don't even profess to understand evolution entirely).

You see, I'm always ready to admit my ingorance. I've done so many times on the blog. And I sometimes wish some others would have similar intellectual humility.

But I do try to think logically and debunk false arguments. in your case too, Newcomer.

So if you too deny evolution, give us an argument to support Chris Doyle in his distress. And I'll debunk it for you. Otherwise you'd do better to keep quiet.

OK, Newcomer?

(No response expected from you either. But if you do reply, let's have some substance. And not just cheap ad hominem sneers ... " Newcomer".)

Chris Doyle has never said whether he agrees that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution and that evolution is God's or Nature's method of creation - quotes he himself picked and chose.

Nor has he ever given us his alternative to evolution.

A pretty poor show, Chris. I'm not surprised at your silence.

Oh, and by the way, you spoke of "plenty of mud-slinging posts by atheistic evolutionists" (10. Nov./11.44am).

So here's another question: Which atheistic evolutionists, and what mud-slinging"?

Perhaps you could resurface for a moment, just to answer those questions. - If you fail to, we can draw our own conclusions.

"What I can't understand, and perhaps you can help me here, is why "Creationists" and those who believe in an Intelligent Designer seem to think that their belief makes evolution impossible."

It seems to me that the clash of views between those known as "Creationists" and advocates of intelligent design on the one hand and those who deny the notions of creation and of intelligent design on the other hand resembles two imaginary groups of notes in a symphony arguing about whether there can be such a thing as a "Composer".
Let us imagine that musical notes have developed a kind of consciousness of themselves and of their environment and that some of them have realised that there are documents called "scores" which describe them and their function in their universe. The more brilliant researchers amongst them have even discovered tendencies in harmonic progressions - tendencies which in their zeal for discovery they have rather inaccurately called "laws" - and one talented note has suggested that there be no need for the wild belief in some "composer" figure advanced by other groups of notes.
Many impressionable notes then come to believe that the music they inhabit has always from time immemorial been unfolding like some vast depolying parachute canopy.
What need, they ask, for some external cause, when they have discovered the things already well established by their scholars? In any case, if there were a "composer", as the others believe, why would he allow so many discords to take place between notes, when he could have "created" a symphony free from such jarring cacophonies as are found in all scores? If "he" is as good as he is cracked up to be, why did he not write a totally concordant work, indeed almost an exact translation of the word "symphony"?
Plainly, they conclude, this "guy in the sky" 'composer myth is just wishful thinking.

Peter Preston - no problem. And I agree that "true" is probably not an appropriate word to use. Better, I think, would be to say something along the lines of ...

... I accept that evolution has taken place. (Using "evolution" in its generally accepted meaning of biological evolution.)

What I can't understand, and perhaps you can help me here, is why "Creationists" and those who believe in an Intelligent Designer seem to think that their belief makes evolution impossible.

They list mutations, DNA, microbes, feathers, scales, polar bears etc. as proof that things are too complicated to have evolved through natural selection.

Not realizing that their imagined Designer or Creator could - if he's worth his salt - ensure that all mutations etc. (and consequently evolution) are indeed possible.

The Catholic Church, if I'm correctly informed, accepts that evolution has taken place and regards it as a work of God. That is logical, for those who believe in an omnipotent God.

And it enables believers to accept the scientific evidence for evolution. After all, we accept the findings of science in, say, medicine or technology, so why should we think that all evolutionary-scientists are liars, out to deceive us?
---------------------
Creationists and followers of the Intelligent Designer never cease to amaze me. And no doubt they will now want me to explain how evolution can be regarded as possible without resort to belief in a supernatural agent.

The amusing thing is that by this logic, they would be able to accept evolution,wheras I - a non-believer in the supernatural - couldn't. In fact it's the other way round.

I can, as I have always said, regard evolution as the most by far the most sensible explantion for biological diversity bearing in mind the alternatives, even though I - a non-scientist - cannot explain it in every detail.

“One wonders then whether those who oppose scientific research to religions do so as incredibly versatile and multi-faceted scholars or as faithful believers in stories which they lack the competence to doubt or even usefully to examine.”

I do not “oppose scientific research to religions”. I dislike intelligent design because it is a fraud. If its proponents had not pretended to be engaged in science and had simply said that they have faith in God and creation, I would not have said a word against them. I do not object to religious belief, but I do believe that science should be allowed to be science, and not be altered to appease what is essentially a political lobby.

“I don’t criticise them for that, of course, but it’s a bit thick at the same time to ridicule others for believing other stories, don’t you think?”

"I simply ask: Does the "other contributor" agree with his own quotes - or doesn't he? That's all."

But the putting of the question is, of course, none of my business and is a matter between you and the other contributor.
What I found very surprising was the subject matter of the quotation about which you seemed to be asking, sir, and it was the asking whether the evolution theories were "true" which seemed inappropriate and not your reason for putting the question.
No disrespect intended, of course..

" Science is used as a smokescreen behind which anti-scientific ideas can be advanced.
It is an ingenious con, in that it uses the depth and complexity of modern science as a weapon to undermine it. What is only understood by specialists, can easily be misrepresented to a wider audience."

I absolutely agree with you, sir, with the one exception that I think you are lumping together the many good scientists with their sometimes unscientific and impressionable disciples and apologists.
It is the glory of the sciences - and one of the things that keep their practitioners from the megalomania into which the miracles which the sciences have recently wrought might otherwise have led them - that they can never reach unalterable conclusions, at least while they remain scientists.
As you say, sir, “what is only understood by specialists, can easily be misrepresented to a wider audience” and that misrepresentation can often take the form of overplaying the hand one has been given. After all, who but someone at least equally qualified is in any position to assess whether such a specialist’s theory holds water, so to speak? As you rightly say, “Science is a complex discipline”, and so the question must sooner or later arise, whether anyone lives long enough to become personally qualified in all the branches of that complexity to a high enough level to be able as equal to equal to assess the validity of all those co-operating specialists.
One wonders then whether those who oppose scientific research to religions do so as incredibly versatile and multi-faceted scholars or as faithful believers in stories which they lack the competence to doubt or even usefully to examine. I don’t criticise them for that, of course, but it’s a bit thick at the same time to ridicule others for believing other stories, don’t you think?

The "other contributor" accuses me of picking and choosing which scientists I beilieve, i.e.. whose findings I accept as credible. He does the same.

He picked and chose several scientists whose views on evolution he thought fit to quote, inter alia:

"Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation." And "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

I simply ask: Does the "other contributor" agree with his own quotes - or doesn't he? That's all.

(I bet he won't answer. And I think I know why.)
-----------------------

Everything you write about the theory of linguistic syntax, the Entfaltungslehre, the Entwicklungslehre, Darwin's understanding of the word "evolution", the etymology of the word "theory", horse-drawn traffic and the landscape along the M6 is fascinating.

But I fail to see its relevance to my simple question: Does the "other contributor" agree with his own quotes - or doesn't he?

"In the light of this explanation, I fail to see why you criticize my question. Or why you should regard it as unworthy of me."

Unworthy of a man of your obvious intelligence, sir, to ask whether a theorem about a procedure is "true" or "false".
Let me try to put it another way.

Unless my understanding of English is deficient, by "evolution" the biologist Charles Darwin referred to a a procedure whereby what in his field of expertise had been potential he perceived as becoming actual and he plainly chose the word as a metaphor of something rolled up being unrolled (the actual meaning of the word) - like for example a roll of carpeting - or of something folded being deployed - perhaps like an umbrella. I believe in German the theory is sometimes called "die Entfaltungslehre" or "die Entwicklungslehre", both of which seem to me to corroborate the point I make.
But how can anyone know whether a procedure which one man has perceived and taught others to perceive must be the only possible way of viewing the data concerned?
A different biologist, whose way of considering genera and species had not yet been influenced by the great biologist might have seen things from a different standpoint and with different predispositions. The very word "theory" derives from a Greek verb θεωρείν which means "to see" or "to view".
The M6 may well, for all I know, be the simplest way to travel by road from, say, Birmingham to Lancaster but the M6 is the result of human thinking and of humans imposing their way of looking on the landscape. In other words the M6 - like the evolutionary theory - is a man-made route between various points and others.
No intelligent person would ask whether the M6 was the "true" way to get from Birmingham to Lancaster. It's there and so people use it but they would use any other convenient route as readily, it it were available. Who knows whether in some future time modes of transport then available may have made the M6 route as much a relic of the past as the days of horse-drawn traffic might have feared it as a nightmare of the future?

“Perhaps even you yourself may not be sufficiently highly qualified or experienced in all the scientific fields concerned so as to be able usefully to assess ... all the brilliant researchers whose conclusions you champion”

Science is a complex discipline, but intelligent design is a simple con.

Its originators camp out on the boundaries of scientific knowledge, looking for things that can’t yet be explained. Once in possession, they assert that what can’t be explained, will never be explained, and that we need to look beyond the natural world for understanding.

Their opinions are then adopted by a receptive audience, who like them because they are being told exactly what they want to believe.

What was once simply a matter of faith, can now be promoted as ground-breaking new science, and the scientific theories that such people have always disliked can be attacked with a new confidence, particularly when addressing a non-specialist audience.

Proponents of intelligent design can fill their arguments with complex scientific detail, creating the impression that their arguments are scientific and evidence based, when really they are based on assertions that are unsupported, unprovable and biased.

Fact and opinion are confused, tactically, to lure the susceptible, with the ruse carefully hidden beneath complex jargon. Science is used as a smokescreen behind which anti-scientific ideas can be advanced.

It is an ingenious con, in that it uses the depth and complexity of modern science as a weapon to undermine it. What is only understood by specialists, can easily be misrepresented to a wider audience. Any specialist who objects can be portrayed as biased, or fearful, or as an enemy of free debate.

If science advances, and the unexplained is explained, intelligent design can simply move with it and start the process all over again.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.